• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

Bumrah vs Marshall at their peak

  • Bumrah

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Marshall

    Votes: 24 80.0%
  • Total voters
    30
S

Swamp Witch Hattie

School Boy/Girl Captain
kyear2 said:
Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.
Click to expand...
"Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well."

The one at the back eventually chimed in a bit more too:

 
Last edited:
S

Swamp Witch Hattie

School Boy/Girl Captain
Something doesn't seem to make sense here. @kyear2 wrote

"Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee."

and he also wrote (a few pages later)

"when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad,"

So Hadlee bowling on pace-friendly pitches in NZ helped his WPM and also hurt his WPM. This seems paradoxical but I think I've figured it out. A pace bowler has a bowling wave function which is a linear superposition of two wave functions, one which increases the WPM and another which decreases it. In Hadlee's case, when bowling at home on those juicy greentops, the coefficient of the second wave function is greater than 1/sqrt (2) which means the probability that Hadlee has a reduced WPM is greater than 50%. When bowling away, the coefficients swap, leading to an increased WPM. Yeah. That must be it.
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
Swamp Witch Hattie said:
Something doesn't seem to make sense here. @kyear2 wrote

"Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee."

and he also wrote (a few pages later)

"when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad,"

So Hadlee bowling on pace-friendly pitches in NZ helped his WPM and also hurt his WPM. This seems paradoxical but I think I've figured it out. A pace bowler has a bowling wave function which is a linear superposition of two wave functions, one which increases the WPM and another which decreases it. In Hadlee's case, when bowling at home on those juicy greentops, the coefficient of the second wave function is greater than 1/sqrt (2) which means the probability that Hadlee has a reduced WPM is greater than 50%. When bowling away, the coefficients swap, leading to an increased WPM. Yeah. That must be it.
Click to expand...
Think the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics is rather overstated and not intuitive at all.

After all- "The old one does not play dice".
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Swamp Witch Hattie said:
"Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either."

True but let's examine this in a bit more detail. If you remove the SL data, this is what Hadlee's away record becomes for his last seven years:

View attachment 43248

So with SL, we have:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.19 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 18.44 vs. 22.65.

Without SL:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.09 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 19.62 vs. 22.65.

His WPM doesn't really move, his average DOES go up but still remains well below his home average (by 3.03 runs cf. 4.21 runs if SL data is included)

Now his 10 WM and POTS awards:

With SL:

10 WM away vs. home: 6 vs. 0
POTS awards away vs. home: 6 vs. 0

Without SL:

10 WM away vs. home: 5 vs. 0
POTS awards away vs. home: 5 vs. 0

So certainly no drastic change.

Hadlee's fantastic away record for his last seven years did not significantly depend on his outstanding bowling against SL for this time period.
Click to expand...
Why only the focus on the 7 years?

And there were additional points that were made.
As I said, near the very end of the decade the pitches did tend to flatten out and those would have had quite a detrimental impact on his home numbers, while he did have a really good series vs a Sunny less India around that same time.

There is no question that for the majority of his career, that the pitches were friendly.
And no, that's not being held against him in any way, Marshall had Sabina and Bridgetown and McGrath had the first half of his career as well. But the pitch les were helpful
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Swamp Witch Hattie said:
Something doesn't seem to make sense here. @kyear2 wrote

"Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee."

and he also wrote (a few pages later)

"when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad,"

So Hadlee bowling on pace-friendly pitches in NZ helped his WPM and also hurt his WPM. This seems paradoxical but I think I've figured it out. A pace bowler has a bowling wave function which is a linear superposition of two wave functions, one which increases the WPM and another which decreases it. In Hadlee's case, when bowling at home on those juicy greentops, the coefficient of the second wave function is greater than 1/sqrt (2) which means the probability that Hadlee has a reduced WPM is greater than 50%. When bowling away, the coefficients swap, leading to an increased WPM. Yeah. That must be it.
Click to expand...
That should have been the lone warriors factor that assisted with the wpm. My bad.

The pitches everything else.

I've been watching a lot of WI footage of the 80's recently, and yes, there were instances where the pitches were helpful, and Marshall hot one bite of the cherry and the opposition were bowled out. Now this wouldn't have hurt his average any, but definitely his wpm. But again that definitely depends on the talent around you.
 
S

Swamp Witch Hattie

School Boy/Girl Captain
kyear2 said:
Why only the focus on the 7 years?

And there were additional points that were made.
As I said, near the very end of the decade the pitches did tend to flatten out and those would have had quite a detrimental impact on his home numbers, while he did have a really good series vs a Sunny less India around that same time.

There is no question that for the majority of his career, that the pitches were friendly.
And no, that's not being held against him in any way, Marshall had Sabina and Bridgetown and McGrath had the first half of his career as well. But the pitch les were helpful
Click to expand...
Your contention is that Hadlee had favourable home pitches for his entire career:

"Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn."

"Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee."

I dispute that. I agree for his first 10 years, not for the last seven, and since Hadlee had his greatest triumphs during his final seven years (most of them away, not at home), that is another reason why I am focussing on that time period.

I have given reasons why I do not think the NZ pitches were all that bowler-friendly OVERALL for Hadlee's last seven years. The batting and bowling stats support that position. The batting average on NZ pitches during Hadlee's last seven years is over a run higher than the global batting average during McGrath's post-2000 batting era. During Hadlee's last seven years, he was picking up tenfer after tenfer, Player of the Series award after Player of the Series award, ALL AWAY (and most of his fifers away: 17 vs. 6 or 15 vs. 6 minus SL). Far better averages, SRs, WPMs and WPIs away as well (even after taking away SL). If those home pitches were helping him then as they say, "with friends like that, you don't need enemies".

Cherry-picking a few Tests where the NZ pitches were dead and saying that they're skewing the statistics (as you have done) does not change the fact that Hadlee had to bowl on them and that they hurt his numbers. The overall stats (which is what I have presented) give you a better impression of what the NZ pitches were like, ON AVERAGE. Why do you think they focus on sample means in statistical analysis and not individual data points? Of course, if you remove the dead pitches from the analysis, what's left are livelier pitches but why remove the dead pitches? Hadlee had to bowl on them. It's as if you are saying, let's remove the dead pitches, what's left? - livelier pitches so that's what Hadlee bowled on. Livelier pitches. Hence the NZ pitches were bowler-friendly. That logic is flawed because the livelier pitches that are left after you remove the dead pitches were not the only NZ pitches that Hadlee bowled on. He also bowled on some dead ones and so they should be included to give an accurate impression of what Hadlee had to bowl on overall. This is such basic stuff that I should not have to spell it out to you!
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Is NZ pitches were friendly for bowling an excuse for Sobers and Richards and even Lara to an extent? I wonder…

Ofc the same friendly pitches that Marshall completely failed to exploit.
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

State Vice-Captain
In NewZealand

1956 : Sobers scored 81 runs in 4 Tests. Weeks scored 418 runs in the same series.

1969 : Sobers scored 70 runs in 3 Tests. Seymour Nurse scored 558 runs in same series.

1987 : Viv scored 77 runs in 3 Tests. Greenidge scored 213 runs in same series.

Lara’s record was better - 406 runs in 7 Tests with 1 century and 3 fifties.

Just a coincidence that Viv & maybe Sobers didn’t do well there.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

School Boy/Girl Captain
Coronis said:
Is NZ pitches were friendly for bowling an excuse for Sobers and Richards and even Lara to an extent? I wonder…

Ofc the same friendly pitches that Marshall completely failed to exploit.
Click to expand...
In one series and one series where he was unfit for the last two tests. Please get the context right. Ditto Viv, he only played there one time, hardly a fair sample size. Similar to Lillee in Pakistan or even Hadlee in Pakistan. Sobers is legitimate though and Lara partially. Lara partially because he played there in 3 short series and had two good series the first two times then had an awful tour the last time, which brought his overall numbers down.
 
S

Swamp Witch Hattie

School Boy/Girl Captain
There are some cricketers who dilute their records with spurious cricket like ODIs and T20s:

Glenn McGrath.JPG

but then there are others who focus on Test cricket only and deserve the highest of respect:

Barry Richards.JPG

(no offence to these great players, you play the cards you are dealt)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top